User talk:Onorem/Archive 13

Survey request

Hi, Onorem I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which medical article(s) you think that I'd be considered an important contributor on, but I think you may be mistaken. --Onorem♠Dil 19:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

JzG

I am very concerned about JzG, and the way in which he treats fellow users. He claims he doesn't like using templates, but this is not an excuse to be overly rude and obnoxious to others, in particular other established users. What is the standard procedure for resolving an issue like this? Man with a tan (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi (again)

You still haven't responded to my message regarding JzG. Just to let you know. Man with a tan (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A recent RfC for JzG was sent to arbitration, where it was then combined with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the evidence subpage. --Onorem♠Dil 16:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Anbmedia

Thanks for the help. Sorry for the confusion. --Anbmedia 3:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to drop by again with any questions. --Onorem♠Dil 14:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Aaron Cook

By all means feel free to fiddle around with what links to disambig etc. I don't intend to war over it either, tbh it was more of a chance for me to practise editing, since I'm relatively new here (I'd like to think I've picked up some things fairly quickly). I'm not sure how far I'm allowed to push WP:BOLD but I'm guessing my edits here were acceptable, even if they do end up being reverted. Thanks for the heads up on the JzG debate btw. Man with a tan (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Pohick2 - Girardi

thanks for the girardi links (i added the info i could find from a google, working on an essay, he seems to be on hiatus, he was a classmate) -Pohick2 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see it being worked on. I was having a hard time finding sources. There was barely enough there for me to feel like I could make a stub that wouldn't be a deletion candidate. --Onorem♠Dil 17:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've expand it a bit based on what i could find online, now into the stacks (the wash post style piece), it's funny vaporetto 13, a mystery set in italy, leads 1 source to think him italian Pohick2 (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the comments, i emailed him, noting his 'false flag' attempt; he emailed me, noting a new novel is in the works, and he might be getting separated?!; the novel articles are bare stubs, need to flesh out, not much unoriginal to choose from. Pohick2 (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Policy wording

I might get some consensus for that later.  Asenine  14:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Gifford.

You did move, not delete one link, I missed the move. You should have removed the Youtube link, it didn't substantiate the claim it was used for ,as is usually the case, thats' why we remove youtube as a citation when it is found. Finally, Gifford's sweatshop mess is well known, and should have been tagged for cleanup, not removed. In removing it, you assist the very white-washers who were the source of the AN/I report. ThuranX (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! Mysdaao ^talk 14:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

William Whipple Warren

Hi!It was interesting the reference had La Pointe being in Minnesota.Minnesota did not become a territory and therefore did not come into existence until 1849 after Wisconsin became a state. There was a La Pointe County in Wisconsin Territory and I believe parts of it became part of what is now Minnesota.My apologies if I made the wrong correction in the article which was real written. I came across it while I was adding a citation to the Michel Cadotte article. Thank you-RFD (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

La Pointe was in Michigan Territory at the time of William Whipple Warren's birth. I do not know if you want to try to edit the article to reflect that information. Thanks-RFD (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

WARNING

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--99.137.208.196 (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. Feel free to point out any diffs of legitimate talk page comments that you think I've removed. --Onorem♠Dil 16:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

104.232.150.91 Heads Up

I thought I should note that the user at IP 140.232.150.91 (talk), who was temporarily banned with that IP as well as 140.232.179.120 (talk), is now back making the same edits with a new IP: 65.4.79.45 (talk). --Jikaku (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Tonyodysseus

So I have to be a full-time professional wikipedia person to create content. The picture for the "nummus" article was completely clean and if I had seen the objection to it I would have adjusted the proper property of it. I have learned to stay away from contentious articles like Hillary Clinton because those are no-win situations. Her poison-pill approach to the nomination is going to get Roe v. Wade overturned for all her diehard post-menopausal friends and it doesn't take a genius to see that. If it walks like a duck, etc. I am a classical scholar and "absolute" insistence on "verifiable" sources means that nothing intelligent can ever be said. Finally perception is subjective. What you and I call "blue" are not the same things. I can't devote six months right now to learning all the ins and outs of wikipedia; I have to work. I guess I will just have to stick to reading and making minor edits where I am strictly competent. So you have the pool all to yourself.--Tony (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You do not have to be a full-time anything to create content. You just need to provide verifiable material from a neutral point of view. Your unsourced opinions don't belong here. I won't dispute that perception is subjective. That's exactly the reason why we only want to include information from reliable sources.

I had nothing to do with the picture from the "nummus" article. If you contact the deleting admin with valid license information, they'll likely restore it for you. --Onorem♠Dil 13:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Tony again. OK. I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. I'm 48 and I would really like to do this right. I'm not interested in ranting about Clinton on Wikipedia. I am interested in writing articles on things I know about. I have sources. I don't know how to use them properly on Wikipedia. What people like me need is a bricks-and-mortar interface where to go and hob-nob and find out how you do all this. I live in New York City. Are there gatherings where people go and chew the fat about this. I raalize that to maintain a high-quality online encycylopedia of millions of articles must require a cadre of thousands of editors like you and I have tremendous respect for what you do. Are there wikipedia conventions. There really should be something like "Wikipedia for Idiots" or whatever. All I need is to get led into the fray and start doing it and then I'm sure I'll be fine and might even end up a wikipedia cop like you. --Tony (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

[Welcome template]

I realize that you're not exactly new here, but a welcome template is the easiest way to provide a lot of good information to someone trying to pick up on some of the (far too many) ins and outs here. The help desk is another good page for asking general questions on how to use/edit articles. I don't know of any gatherings where you could meet and ask questions in real life, but it's not something I've ever looked into myself. --Onorem♠Dil 13:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

my apologies

sorry, that eit re: rv vandalism? was directed to the person who put the cat: Wikipedian who poop on my userpage and not to you Thank you for helping me out on my talk page and i didnt mean to accuse you of being the vandal but instead it was directed to non-reggie. My apologies :: Smith Jones (talk) 02:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

i am fine with whatev you say and thaks again for looking out for me it was much appreciated. i have now now nor have ever been a hacker but thanks for taking the time to bring this to my atetnntion. Smith Jones (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Reinhard Jaeger

Oh, well I've made both redirects to Reinhard Jaeger and put the content there - which'd be the correct title anyways. I'm inclined to leave the redirects so the author will find the page if he returns, redirects cost nothing, so it seems like the most sensible solution. WilyD 12:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I don't see the point in keeping it around myself, but I definitely won't lose sleep over it. I more wanted to leave a note because your edit summary indicated that it wasn't a redirect. I was just pointing out why I tagged it as r3 even though it wasn't a redirect. --Onorem♠Dil 12:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Err, fair enough, though it's link to from another article : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Reinhard_Jaeger(bodybuilder) which would've had to have been fixed, for instance. WilyD 12:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That it is. My mistake for only looking at the contributions of the article's creator instead of 'what links here' also. I'm still in favor of fixing incorrectly formatted items and deleting redirects like this, but again, it's not something I'm going to worry about. --Onorem♠Dil 13:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

hi

that page was gonna get deleted anyways so why does it matter 147.72.96.3 (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Tony Feld

You're in deep doo doo! --Mr. Conrad 14:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Good to know. --Onorem♠Dil 14:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Entertainment ref. desk

Thanks for your answer re: "Deep Red (1994)". I found the movie's trailer and it looks like the right one - it's been bugging me for ages! Thanks again! Booglamay (talk) - 12:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for help re Hendrix

That was bugging me. Thank you. --Stroika (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Bitch

Can you prove that Joe the Plumber isn't related to Joe Six Pack??? I didn't think so. Block me. I dare you. I'll just get a new ip address and do it again. Shazaaaam.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.118.177 (talk • contribs)

Hi

Hi. I'd like to start of by saying that I removed your absurd warning from my page - any more of that bullshit will result in removal as well. Next point. It is perfectly acceptable to remove "reports" if they are baseless and clearly wrong - sure, you can leave them if maybe there is a chance, but seeing as how all the guy did was revert vandalism, then I have every right to remove frivolous reports. Please read and re-read WP:3RR until you fully understand it. Thanks. Boonsan (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's your right to remove warnings from your page...although I obviously disagree that it was absurd. If the report is baseless, then there will be no resulting block. That's not your decision to make, especially in a case like this where it clearly isn't vandalism being reverted. I'll take your advice on reading WP:3RR under advisement, but I'm fairly confident I have a better grasp of it than you if you think you're in the right in this case. --Onorem♠Dil 13:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, please note that you will be in violation of 3RR if you remove the report again. --Onorem♠Dil 13:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sir, your continued personal attacks and harassment only serve to further the belief that you do not understand the core policies of Wikipedia. I suggest you refrain from editing until such time your have learned the basics. You can start by learning The Five Pillars. Good day. Boonsan (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

:I'm afraid I'm not aware of any personal attacks or harassment made on my part. Could you please explain where you think I made them? Also, adding fact tags is not simple vandalism. Please take it to the talk page instead of revert warring in the future. --Onorem♠Dil 13:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You're now in violation of 3RR on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. You can self-revert, or you can be the next reported. It's up to you. --Onorem♠Dil 13:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read up on Wikipedia's core policies before giving absurd warnings. Boonsan (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you're going to have to be more specific. --Onorem♠Dil 13:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Youc an report me if you want, but that "report" will be removed as well, as it in invalid, for I have only been reverting vandalism. If you don't want to swallow your pride and admit you are wrong, well, that's your problem, not mine. Boonsan (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that approach. There is absolutely no way that what you're currently doing could be described as reverting vandalism. Please see WP:VANDALISM if you're not familiar with how it's defined here. --Onorem♠Dil 13:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi (2)

I'd just like to say I'm impressed. I actually don't care at all about this issue (I mean, do you honestly believe that I believed the shit I was spouting? LOL) - I merely stumbled across it, and saw a chance to troll. In fact, you were trolled by a pro; I have many accounts on many websites/forums, and have been the subject of many memes.

I dare say I'm one of the finest in the field, yet you kept your cool, and didn't make yourself out to be a total tool. Kudos, good Sir.

Although I can't say the same for those other guys on my talk page. Every one of them fell victim to me.

You sir, are a pro. Keep on keeping on. Boonsan (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.182.48 (talk)

BC report on "joe Plumber"

Tonight the BBC is reporting the Joe Sixpack "news" footage to be a coordinated effort of the Republican national Committee, McCain-Palin Campaign, and Fox news. Intnetionally creaed a false event for the press is sort of a controversy. Wurzelbacher stated on a U.S morning news program that he was asked to do this by the McCain campaign. CApitol3 (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Heard it twice this evening, most recently on air at 10:30 PM EDST. CApitol3 (talk)

Not really against McCain, but this sounds like a set-up. And misleading the nation, presenting this as truth when it is concocted is controversial. CApitol3 (talk)

Cross Hall (White House) naming convention

Cross Hall (White House) is a less parochial title. I've followed an existing convention for White house related articles of placing the words White House in parentheses after the subject, where multiple, non-White House uses exist. Example: Red Room (White House), or South Lawn (White House). The Lincoln Bedroom, Lincoln Sitting Room, or Vermeil Room are room names distinct to the White House. The name Cross Hall, like Red Room, is relatively common in neoclassical, especially Georgian, architecture. As the article subject is not Cross Halls in general but specifically the one at the White House, it makes sense to disambiguate. Discussion on this subject has taken place on several White House articles, please see comment page for North Lawn (White House). Thanks. CApitol3 (talk)

Do whatever you want with it. I don't see how it makes sense to add disambiguation before it's needed, but I won't war over the name. I didn't realize that White House rooms were so important that they needed their own set of naming rules. --Onorem♠Dil 11:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to rename but it is blocked. Are you able? Thanks. CApitol3 (talk)

I can't move it. I've added a request here. --Onorem♠Dil 13:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration on tax issues

I have requested arbitration on tax issues here:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Inclusion of tax liens and opinions about taxation of Joe the Plumber in Joe Wurzelbacher and United States presidential election debates, 2008#Joe the Plumber

What template is this?

What template is this? thank you. Inclusionist (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I really appreciate it a lot. Have a good weekend :) Inclusionist (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

NFCC#9

The policy is currently very clear that fair use images should never be used on portals. Please do not replace these images. --Onorem♠Dil 13:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they be used on portals? They are surrounded by an excerpt of the same content that is in the mainspace article. What makes it fair use in the article but not when accompanied by only the article lead? Simultaneous movement (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the rv on my userpage, appreciate it. Keep up the great work, best Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 01:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment from JMST

Thanks for helping out with the Indie Spotlight article. The User:ShockerHelp has been vandalizing and now is attempting to make it look like proper edits. I just hope we can get more editors to help get the article to look properly but it might head towards a delete.--JMST (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see, it's possible that it should end up deleted. They don't really appear to have done anything notable as far as businesses are concerned. Whether that's my opinion after I have a bit more time to look into it is a different story. I wouldn't necessarily call what ShockerHelp has been doing vandalism, but much of it doesn't appear to be all that helpful... --Onorem♠Dil 23:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to take a look at what is going on with the Indie Spotlight article? ShockerHelp (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:OnoTemp1.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:OnoTemp1.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 19:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Bob Mortimer revert

why did you revert the edit i made to the Bob Mortimer page?

in 1997 middlesbrough reached the Coca-Cola Cup final, not the Worthington Cup final. it was not changed to the 'Worthington cup' until later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.147.212 (talk)

Your change was reverted because it was unsourced and preceded by an obviously bad edit on the Daniel Radcliffe article. --Onorem♠Dil 13:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed the whole statement about what cup finals they did or didn't reach. It's not really important in context. --Onorem♠Dil 13:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

shows what you know. the radcliffe edit came AFTER the mortimer edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.147.212 (talk)

Please look up preceded. --Onorem♠Dil 13:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"preceded - To go before, go in front of."

"Your change was reverted because it was unsourced and preceded by an obviously bad edit on the Daniel Radcliffe article"

my radcliffe edit came after the mortimer one.

my point stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.147.212 (talk)

I've acknowledged my mistake. Go find something productive to do. --Onorem♠Dil 13:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

likewise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.147.212 (talk)

Rootkit#Detection

Thanks for explaining the issue about AVG. The fact alone that it had been commented out was not enough of a clue, since there was no hint in that comment as to why it was commented out. And i hadn't thought of searching for "Grisoft" in the edit comments... -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Absorbatox

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on User talk:Absorbatox, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because User talk:Absorbatox is a test page.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting User talk:Absorbatox, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)